Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Violent crimes are usually committed by someone you know. You won't see it coming :-\

Quote:

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer

New England Journal of Medicine

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.

Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

Having a highly intelligent populous is much more dangerous to a government than owning guns ever will be. There's a reason the first people controlled, threatened, rounded up, jailed, and murdered are the well educated. Not the hillbillies shooting AK's at Busch Light cans in their backyard.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics and The National Safety Council disagree with those "facts".

10% of all murders are committed by a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. What do you think that number is going to be when you factor in all known acquaintances? Don't agree with me? Maybe you'll agree with the actual BJS not some blog citing the BJS.

10% of all murders are committed by a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. What do you think that number is going to be when you factor in all known acquaintances? Don't agree with me? Maybe you'll agree with the actual BJS not some blog citing the BJS.

"Homicides committed by friends/acquaintances and strangers are more likely to involve guns than those committed by initmates or family members."

51% of all homicides are committed by someone you know. This study includes ALL homocides. The percentage of gun homocides compared to total homocides (a guesstimate since their charts are not very detailed) is about 60%. The percentage of intimate and nonintimate family firearm homocides to total homocides is 21%. I won't necessarily include friends/acquaintances in there. I have many acquaintances (for example work colleagues) that don't know my wife's name, where I live, or anything else beyond what is public record.

That being said, I don't disagree that there is a flipside to gun ownership. Not everyone is responsible enough to own a firearm, even if they can pass a NICS background check. Just like not everyone is responsible enough to own a car, or have a baby, or walk and chew gum at the same time.

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, there should be stricter checks for people who want to own a gun, or already have a firearm. Especially psychology checks.

Hell, I bet I could be able to get my hands on a gun faster over here than getting my license back from a DUI in Germany. Things are just handled a bit too loosely over here. I guess that's why everyone fears the "pro-gun black sheep" instead of actively doing something about them.

What exactly was your point in making this thread? To instigate another e-argument by posting another daily dose of 'PK Ridiculous' and then back out by seemingly changing your opinion of things within the first page?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penguin Koolaid

I support gun ownership, and enjoy going to the range. So I am a bit lost with the eye rolling. It's as if there isn't a flip-side to gun ownership, and all the gun owners are storming in here upset that I would even suggest such a duality.

...So you just made a thread about your internal struggle with this news story?

10% of all murders are committed by a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. What do you think that number is going to be when you factor in all known acquaintances? Don't agree with me? Maybe you'll agree with the actual BJS not some blog citing the BJS.

One more point. Just so you don't think that I am simply dismissing the friends/acquaintance category, another reason I didn't use that category in my personal analysis of the data (other than the fact that acquaintance can have a very broad definition) is the lack of other forms of data, specifically how many of these friends/acquainances firearm homocides are drug related? A person you conspire to commit criminal acts with (such as drug trafficking) would be considered an acquaintance, would they not? It just adds another facet to the discussion and without hard data (I can always search for it but it's late) I can't draw any conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rayce185

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, there should be stricter checks for people who want to own a gun, or already have a firearm. Especially psychology checks.

Hell, I bet I could be able to get my hands on a gun faster over here than getting my license back from a DUI in Germany. Things are just handled a bit too loosely over here. I guess that's why everyone fears the "pro-gun black sheep" instead of actively doing something about them.

I don't know what you mean by "pro-gun black sheep", but I certainly hope it's not some type of slight against many of the fine people of this country that choose to own firearms legally and responsibly.

The fact of the matter is that stricter gun control laws WILL NOT keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. All it will do is make it harder for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to obtain firearms. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in North America, very draconian in nature. Yet Mexico is a very violent country, especially lately (don't give me that Clinton rhetoric about Mexican drug cartels buying $1500 semi-auto rifles, they are getting automatic weapons from international weapons smugglers and rogue nations for much cheaper). CA and Washington DC have pretty strict firearm laws, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that either place has more gun violence than a place like NV (legal to own and store class III weapons with the proper tax stamp, class III weapons include fully automatic machine guns, sound supressors, armor piercing and incendiary rounds, pen guns, SBR's, etc.) or TX. Even though it is perfectly legal to own a fully automatic machine gun in NV, you simply don't hear about people going on machine gun rampages out here.

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, instead of paroling two time losers so they can kill cops with illegal firearms (both illegal for a parolee to own any firearm and black rifles are illegal in CA unless they have fixed 10 rd mags and meet other criteria) we should quit with all of the politically correct bullsh1t, stop giving criminals and scumbags every advantage, and allow our upstanding citizens to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Criminals will get their hands on guns whether it is legal or not. Like people still drank during the prohibition. Didn't anyone watch Demolition Man? When you have a society with nothing but taser sticks (eventually cops won't even be allowed to use guns cause those guns kill too!) they will be overpowered by the criminals who have them.

Criminals will get their hands on guns whether it is legal or not. Like people still drank during the prohibition. Didn't anyone watch Demolition Man? When you have a society with nothing but taser sticks (eventually cops won't even be allowed to use guns cause those guns kill too!) they will be overpowered by the criminals who have them.

Yea because demolition man was a movie so it must be the troof. Only thing i learned from that movie was that black people look bad with bleached hair.

I went to a gun show this past weekend. Of the (just ball parking the# of attendees) 7500 people there, no one was hurt Actually, considering the size of the crowd, I've never met nicer folks in such a crowded place. Whenever someone brushed past it was followed by an "pardon me/excuse me / sorry about that" which I've not encountered at other crowded public gatherings.

Also, look up some first hand accounts of people defending themselves with a gun. American Rifleman (yes, an NRA publication :gasp has a column devoted to these letters sent in every month. That is a true testament to what ownership is about.
If you can't find them online, I'll gladly ship you some of my old magazines I have laying around.

I have a question for the anti-gun people that's a really honest question. I really don't mean it with sarcasm, it's more like i would like to poll what some people think.

If sh*t were to hit the fan, who do you expect to protect you and your family?
Now I do not mean if a burglar comes into your house at night, I mean a big catastrophe... A natural disaster where people are in a panic and start looting, or a terrorist attack, or something like that. Examples that come to mind are Katrina, race riots in LA, etc.

or do you suspect that something like this won't happen?

Lol, in case of a disaster like that, I'd rally up all the anti-gun men and use them for Operation Human Shield.

I went to a gun show this past weekend. Of the (just ball parking the# of attendees) 7500 people there, no one was hurt Actually, considering the size of the crowd, I've never met nicer folks in such a crowded place. Whenever someone brushed past it was followed by an "pardon me/excuse me / sorry about that" which I've not encountered at other crowded public gatherings.

Also, look up some first hand accounts of people defending themselves with a gun. American Rifleman (yes, an NRA publication :gasp has a column devoted to these letters sent in every month. That is a true testament to what ownership is about.
If you can't find them online, I'll gladly ship you some of my old magazines I have laying around.

Because they are the good guys of the gun owners, have you met the bad guys?

Because they are the good guys of the gun owners, have you met the bad guys?

And you do realize the bad guys you are speaking of, usually are using stolen guns and even with a gun ban, it wouldn't effect them.

You're taking away weapons from the good guys, in your terms.

Edit - Also I am not trying to start a debate with you, because it is pretty much PROVEN that if you make a gun ban,
organized criminals will still have access to arsenal. Trust me, all local drug dealers, organized criminals, etc. here are using stolen guns.